Corrosion Control Survey Methods

for Offshore
Pipelines and Structures
by
Clark P. Weldon

and
David H. Kroon, P.E.
Vice President of Engineering
CORRPRO Companies, Inc.
Construction and operation of offshore production fa-
cilities is tremendously expensive. The consequences
of an offshore corrosion failure can be devastating. For
these reasons, cathodic protection has become a uni-
versally applied technique for mitigating corrosion on
marine pipeline and production facilities.
Marine pipelines are typically provided with cathodic
protection by bracelet anodes of zinc or aluminum. Im-
pressed current systems at platforms or onshore are
also used, as well as hybrid systems which employ a
combination of the two techniques. For marine struc-
tures, aluminum anodes are often attached to the jacket,
although impressed current and hybrid systems are also
common.
Whatever the method of applying cathodic protection,
the primary concern is arresting corrosion. For cathodic
protection to be effective in arresting corrosion, a prop-
erly planned program of monitoring, inspection and
maintenance is essential.
The most widely accepted method of evaluating ca-
thodic protection on pipelines and structures is through
the use of potential measurements. Potential measure-
ments on offshore pipelines have traditionally been re-
corded only at readily accessible locations such as plat-
form risers, wellheads, and test stations located near
shore. Divers can be used to take potential measure-
ments on unburied pipelines, but this procedure is much
too costly to use extensively.
Monitoring of pipeline cathodic protection only at plat-
forms or shore installations provides limited informa-
tion. It is possible that serious corrosion can be occur-
ring on a pipeline even when potentials at a riser or test
station satisfy the criteria for cathodic protection.
In many respects, the same is true for platforms. Po-
tential measurements taken from the surface frequently
do not reflect the significant data necessary for com-
prehensive evaluation of the cathodic protection sys-
tem. In many cases, areas of low potential indicating
lack of protection are highly localized at nodes, con-
ductor bays or skirt pile guides. These anomalies would
typically not be detected unless a detailed inspection
and potential survey was performed.
Corrosion surveys and inspection of offshore platforms
and pipelines are particularly important at this stage in
development of our offshore petroleum resources. Many
existing offshore platforms and pipelines are reaching
the end of their cathodic protection system design lives.
Decisions must be made as to if and/or when additional

Corrpro Companies, Inc. Technical Paper 4 Page 1 of 10

 Figure 1 Towed Fish/Trailing Wire Survey
cathodic protection must be retrofitted to prevent cor-
rosion failures. The data provided by corrosion surveys
and inspection plays a key role in this decision making
process.
The industry move into “deep” water has also had a
tremendous impact on corrosion control practices. Deep
water platforms and pipelines present new challenges
for design, maintenance, inspection and retrofit of cor-
rosion control systems. The advent of the remotely op-
erated vehicle (ROV) has radically altered corrosion
survey and inspection practices.
Probably the single most important development in the
last several years with respect to offshore corrosion
survey and inspection methods is the use of computers
Computerization of survey data acquisition, processing
and management has provided the means for develop-
ment of all of the state of the art corrosion control tech-
niques used today. These include close interval pipeline
surveys, modeling of platform cathodic protection and
inspection data management systems.
The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of
corrosion control survey techniques in use today for
monitoring and maintenance of offshore pipelines and
platforms. The paper also includes a discussion of com-
puterized inspection data management techniques.
Corrpro Companies, Inc. Technical Paper 4
Towed Vehicle/Trailing Wire Pipeline Survey
The Towed Vehicle/Trailing Wire potential survey is
probably the most widely used method for monitoring
cathodic protection levels along offshore pipelines. The
survey is performed by making a test connection to the
pipeline at an accessible location such as an offshore
platform riser or onshore test station. Alternately, the
survey may be performed with a test connection to a
stationary electrode placed on the sea floor at a loca-
tion where the pipeline potential is known. A silver/sil-
ver chloride reference electrode is towed above the
pipeline from a vessel while maintaining the test con-
nection. The pipe-to-electrolyte (P/E) potential is mea-
sured and recorded on board with a computerized data
acquisition system. The potential is displayed on a video
terminal and plotted on a graphics printer’ (see Figure
1).
The pipeline is generally tracked by electronic position-
ing equipment in conjunction with as-built coordinates.
Side scan sonar or marine magnetometers can be used,
particularly when the accuracy of the as-built coordi-
nates is in question, or is not available.
The foremost objective of this survey is to determine
the general level of cathodic protection relative to the
NACE. criterion of -800 millivolts to Ag/AgCl. Figure
2 shows a typical P/E potential profile. Study of the
Page 2 of 10
 profile indicates adequate cathodic protection with the
exception of approximately 4000 feet of pipeline cen-
tered at seven thousand feet from the platform. Poten-
tial values recorded on this section are more positive
than the -800 millivolt criterion for cathodic protection.
A depression in potential value of this magnitude is typi-
cally caused by either severe coating damage or anode
depletion. The exact cause cannot be determined from
the potential profile alone.1
The continuous towed vehicle survey can also provide
information to determine magnitude and direction of long
line currents, electrical interference, and current require-
ments.
The towed vehicle/trailing wire survey is used to deter-
mine the overall P/E potential profile and for location of
major problem areas such as areas of coating damage
or anode loss. The advantages are relatively low cost,
when compared to submersible or diver assisted sur-
veys, and simplicity of theory and operation. Addition-
ally, this is the only technique which can be used eco-
nomically on buried pipelines and under other condi-
tions where visual or magnetic tracking with a diver or
R.O.V. is difficult to impossible.
The primary disadvantage is lack of sensitivity to minor
anomalies such as individual anode bracelets, small coat-
ing defects, and poorly insulated field joints. On a well
polarized pipeline, anomalies such as these can be de-
tected only when the reference electrode position is
maintained at a distance of less than approximately two
pipeline diameters from the pipeline.
Submersible/Trailing Wire Pipeline Survey
This technique uses the same principles as the towed
vehicle survey, but a submersible is used to carry the
reference electrode along the pipeline. Under normal
circumstances, the reference electrode position can be
maintained within a meter of the pipeline at all times.
This makes it possible to detect features such as brace-
let anodes and coating holidays that cannot be detected
using the towed vehicle method.
Figure 3 illustrates the technique using an unmanned
submersible (remotely operated vehicle) to carry the
reference electrode. Note that the R.O.V. is only used
as a vehicle for the reference electrode. All wire han-
dling and data acquisition are performed on board the
support vessel which is connected to the R.O.V. by a
tether.2

Figure 2: P/E Potential Profile - Towed Fish Survey

-1200

-1100
POTENTIAL (Millivolts)

-1000

-900

-800

-700

-600
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000
DISTANCE (Feet)

Corrpro Companies, Inc. Technical Paper 4 Page 3 of 10

 Figure 3 Unmanned Submersible Trailing Wire Survey
Reading location is typically determined using conven-
tional electronic surface positioning (ship location) in-
terfaced with underwater acoustic positioning (ROV
location). Reference points such as anode bracelets,
pipe joints, line crossings and risers serve as calibration
points for the positioning systems. Position fixes are elec-
tronically entered into the cathodic protection survey
data stream at fixed intervals and at anomalies. The sur-
vey data is later plotted versus pipeline stationing to
provide a detailed continuous potential profile of a pipe-
line. This includes detection of individual bracelet an-
odes, coating holidays, and poorly coated or damaged
field joint wraps. A short section of typical data is shown
in Figure 4. Study of the data indicates the presence of
two functioning bracelet anodes and two poorly coated
field joints.
Anode
Field Joints
Figure 4: P/E Potential Profile-Submersible Assisted
Survey
Corrpro Companies, Inc. Technical Paper 4
The primary advantage of the submersible technique is
the increased sensitivity to minor changes in potential.
The survey provides a detailed P/E potential profile,
pinpoints the location of problem areas, and provides
information concerning the cause of a problem. The
submersible potential survey is ideally performed in con-
junction with electric field gradient (cell-to-cell) mea-
surements. This provides even greater resolution of
anomalies and aids in the interpretation of the P/E po-
tential data.
The primary disadvantage of the submersible survey is
relatively high cost per pipeline mile. The cost of a sub-
mersible survey is approximately 7 to 10 times the cost
of the towed vehicle survey on a per mile basis. For this
reason, most submersible assisted cathodic protection
surveys are performed in conjunction with other work
requiring an ROV.
A particular disadvantage of the Submersible/Trailing
Wire technique is that the use of a trailing wire during an
ROV aided survey can be difficult. The survey
progresses by maintaining the position of the survey
support vessel above the ROV as the vehicle travels
along the pipeline. This maneuver called “live boating”
requires skillful interaction between the survey vessel
captain, the navigators and the R.O.V. pilot. The trail-
Page 4 of 10
ing wire can further complicate this often delicate pro-
cess particularly when weather conditions are poor.
Remote Electrode Submersible Survey
The most commonly used submersible aided survey is
the remote electrode survey. This technique has been
popular in the North Sea for nearly ten years and is
commonly used as a component of many pipeline in-
spections or surveys.
The remote electrode submersible survey measures the
potential between a Ag/AgCl electrode positioned just
above the pipeline and a “remote” electrode located
near the water’s surface above the pipeline. This mea-
surement is used in conjunction with direct contact P/E
potential measurements at anodes and other accessible
locations to produce a continuous P/E potential pro-
file. A schematic of the remote reference electrode sur-
vey is shown in Figure 5.
At the start of a remote electrode survey, a direct con-
tact P/E potential is measured at an accessible location
such as a bracelet anode. Simultaneously, the potential
between the electrode close to the pipe and the remote
electrode mounted on the submersible umbilical is re-
corded. This establishes the fixed voltage offset be-
tween the pipe potential and remote earth The two elec-
trodes are then moved down the pipeline and the po-
tential between the electrodes is continuously recorded.
Figure 5: Remote Electrode Survey
Corrpro Companies, Inc. Technical Paper 4
The P/E potential at any particular point on the pipe is
then the P/E potential recorded by direct contact, plus
the voltage offset between the close and remote elec-
trodes at the point of direct contact, minus the potential
between the remote and close electrodes at the par-
ticular point.
The primary advantage of this method is its relative ease
of operation. Unlike the trailing wire technique, the re-
mote electrode method has little or no effect on the ROV
“live boating” operation.
The primary disadvantage is that direct contact poten-
tial readings are required to establish the original volt-
age offset and to recalibrate the measurements at fre-
quent intervals.
This is required because the remote cell is moving and
is subject to some potential drift or variation over time.
This requirement virtually excludes the use of the re-
mote electrode survey on pipelines that are continuously
buried over long distances, as is the case with many
pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico.
Electric Field Gradient Survey
Electric field gradient (E.F.G.) measurements are usu-
ally made in conjunction with potential measurements
obtamed using an R.O.V. E.F.G. measurements are made
by measuring the potential of two electrodes placed at
Page 5 of 10
a known distance apart in a plane perpendicular to the
pipeline. This is typically accomplished by mounting two
or more electrodes on a submersible, aligned so that
they are normal to the pipeline, as the ROV proceeds
along the pipeline. The electrodes may be spaced from
a few inches apart to over two feet apart depending on
the equipment.
One operator uses a rotating “T sensor” with two elec-
trodes to measure EFG The sensor is rotated to elimi-
nate errors caused by electrode potential drift over the
course of a survey. The operator claims precision of up
to 1 micro-volt/cm using this technique.3
Electric field gradient measurements are used to detect
changes in current density and direction at all points
along a pipeline. This allows detection of anomalies such
as nonfunctioning anodes, coating holidays, and defec-
tive field joint wraps which may not be detected by P/E
potential measurements. EFG also provides data useful
for estimation of current densities associated with an-
odes (current output) and coating holidays. This infor-
mation can be used to predict cathodic protection sys-
tem life and for design of future pipeline cathodic pro-
tection systems. Please note, however, that due to the
complex nature of the pipeline environment and the EFG
measurement, accurate calculation of anode output is
extremely difficult, if not impossible, using existing sur-
vey techniques. A number of variables must be consid-
ered in this calculation including electrolyte resistivity,
degree of anode burial and anodesensor geometry. A
study performed in 1982 of the various methods for
offshore pipeline cathodic protection systems states that
“.... calculations of anode currents from current density
on electric field gradient measurements suffer from con-
siderable errors such as those introduced when mea-
suring the c.d/e.f.g., determining the sensor to anode
distance and the direction of the measurement and fur-
thermore estimating the symmetry of the electric
field.”4
E.F.G. measurements are extremely useful for deter-
mining location and relative severity of coating holidays,
and for locating disfunctional anodes. The measurements
can also provide a useful comparative estimate of an-
ode outputs They do not provide highly reliable data
Corrpro Companies, Inc. Technical Paper 4
for determining anode life or P/E potential. E.F.G. mea-
surements are most valuable when used in conjunction
with P/E potential surveys or with direct P/E potential
readings taken at frequent intervals along pipelines.
Drop Line Platform Survey
The most commonly used method for monitoring ca-
thodic protection levels on offshore platform jackets is
to lower a weighted Ag/AgCl reference electrode from
the platform deck and record structure-to-electrolyte
potential values at uniform intervals from the water sur-
face to the sea floor. This procedure is generally re-
peated at several representative locations on the plat-
form jacket. Electrical connection to the structure is
made above the water line. The electrical connection
should be made to a welded structural member and
should not be in the vicinity of welding activity.
The chief advantage of this method is simplicity and low
cost. The primary disadvantage of the drop line is lack
of ability to control reference electrode position relative
to the structure. This makes accurate interpretation of
potential measurements extremely difficult and prevents
useful correlation of data with previous surveys on the
same platform.
Guy Line Platform Survey
The guy line platform survey employs a tensioned guy
wire which runs from the sea floor to the water surface
inside the platform jacket. A reference electrode is at-
tached to the guy wire and lowered to the bottom while
potential measurements are taken at selected intervals.
The advantage of this technique is that potential mea-
surements are recorded at the same location during each
cathodic protection survey. Useful correlation of data
from successive surveys is therefore possible. The ma-
jor limitation is that the reference electrode cannot be
placed at specific locations, such as nodes or anodes.
Despite this, the guy wire survey is an improvement over
the drop line survey and can still be accomplished at a
relatively low cost. This is particularly true on structures
located in shallow water.
Diver/R.O.V. Assisted Platform Survey
This technique employs a diver or R.O.V. to position
the reference electrode near the structure. The poten-
Page 6 of 10
tial survey may be performed using one of two tech-
niques. One technique involves use of a diver held volt-
meter equipped with a sharp metallic probe and a Ag/
AgCl reference electrode. The diver simply presses the
contact probe against the structure and reads the digital
display of the voltmeter. The potential reading is trans-
mitted to the surface by audio link
The preferred method is to use an above water metallic
connection to the structure and an above water mea-
surement device. The diver or R.O.V. is used solely to
place the reference electrode at the desired location
while the potential measurement is recorded. This as-
sures that a high resistance metallic contact is not af-
fecting the potential measurement.
If an R.O.V. is used, potential is measured using a sil-
ver/silver chloride reference electrode mounted on the
frame of the vehicle. The electrode is mounted in a po-
sition that allows the tip of the electrode to be placed
directly against the structure in front of the video cam-
era.
The primary purpose of the survey is to obtain a com-
prehensive potential profile of the platform. This is ac-
complished by recording potential values around each
node and at all locations where cathodic protection cur-
rent flow may be shielded or otherwise impeded, such
as at conductor bell guides. Potential values are also
recorded along representative structural members and
conductors. Special attention is given to areas of the
jacket such as the skirt pile guides, conductors, and
boat docks
Representative anodes should be visually inspected and
tested for operation by structure-to-electrode poten-
tial, electric field gradient, or both Where areas of lower
than expected potential values are detected, more ex-
tensive testing is performed. This includes physical mea-
surement of adjacent anodes, electric field gradient
measurements and detailed visual inspection.
If low potential values are found over an entire depth
zone, further testing and inspection is performed. When
a visual inspection of the depth zone indicates that the
low potential values are not caused by missing or de-
Corrpro Companies, Inc. Technical Paper 4
pleted anodes or by metal unaccounted for in the ca-
thodic protection design (e.g. debris, additional con-
ductors), then environmental conditions must be con-
sidered. These include temperature, dissolved oxygen,
salinity, and water currents. Each of these parameters
can be measured from the surface to the sea floor to
provide a complete profile with depth.
The primary advantage of using a diver or an ROV to
perform a platform potential survey is that the electrode
can be placed at known locations, thus allowing a de-
tailed potential map of the structure to be obtained. This
is the only method of assuring that cathodic protection
is being achieved at all locations on the structure.
The choice of using divers or ROV’s to perform the
survey is primarily a function of water depth Generally,
ROV’s are more cost effective than divers for inspec-
tions in over 200 feet of water. Otherwise, divers and
ROV’s both have their attributes and drawbacks Divers
are capable of performing many functions such as mag-
netic particle inspection, cleaning, debris removal and
repairs far more effectively than ROV’s . The primary
advantage of ROV’s besides increased depth capabili-
ties, is as a relatively stable platform for video record-
ing. This allows the viewer on the surface, who is hope-
fully an experienced corrosion engineer, to direct the
corrosion survey by watching a video monitor. The
placement of the electrode as well as any damage, cor-
rosion or debris is recorded on videotape. In most cases,
inspection data such as depth, time, data and potential
is digitally superimposed on the videotape. This aids in
post survey data processing, tape editing and report-
ing. Note that many operators are now using a combi-
nation of divers and ROV’s for comprehensive inspec-
tions on major structures. ROV’s are generally used for
the detailed potential survey and visual inspections, fol-
lowed by divers for marine growth removal, cleaning,
NDT and debris removal.
Platform EFG/Current Density Survey
Several major operators, particularly in the North Sea,
regularly employ EFG/Current Density measurements
as a component of comprehensive ROV assisted jacket
inspections. The E.F.G. measurements are used to cal-
culate cathode current densities and anode outputs. This
Page 7of 10
data is useful in diagnosing current distribution prob-
lems, estimating cathodic protection system life, and
designing new and retrofit cathodic protection systems.
These measurements are particularly useful for design
of cathodic protection for deep water structures. Many
cathodic protection design parameters for deep water
are not well understood, although research is currently
being conducted. EFG/Current Density measurements
on existing deep water structures provide valuable em-
pirical information for future designs. This includes an-
ode performance, polarization rates and current den-
sity requirements.
Due to the complex geometry of platform jackets, ac-
curate and useful EFG measurements require the use of
highly sophisticated EFG sensors. These EFG measure-
ment systems must be able to detect changes in poten-
tial in the micro-volt range and have the means for de-
termining the direction of current flow. Several ROV
mounted systems are currently being used. These in-
clude the rotating T-sensor described earlier, and a sen-
sor containing a concentric array of several reference
electrodes all referenced to a common central electrode.
EFG measurements are generally recorded at repre-
sentative anodes, nodes, conductors and pile guides.
The data is later used to calculate current densities and
anode outputs. In some cases, the EFG data is used
along with potential data for calculation of current dis-
tribution using computer modeling techniques such as
finite element and finite boundary analysis.
Computerized Inspection Data Management
During a comprehensive inspection of a platform jacket,
vast amounts of pertinent data are collected. This may
include cathodic protection potentials, EFG measure-
ments and descriptions of marine growth, debris and
structural damage. Additionally, hours of videotape are
recorded. In the case of a diver assisted inspection, the
data may include magnetic particle inspection and ultra
sonic testing. Computerized data management systems
have been developed to facilitate accurate and com-
plete information recording, compilation, analysis and
reporting.
Corrpro Companies, Inc. Technical Paper 4
Most information management systems use personal
computers in conjunction with a relational data base
system. Inspection information is generally entered into
the computer on board the survey vessel as the inspec-
tion proceeds. This information must include time, date,
videotape number and test point designation for corre-
lation with drawings, logs and videotapes. Inspection
points, such as nodes, are each assigned an alphanu-
meric designation based on depths and structural loca-
tion. This uniquely identifies each inspection point in the
data base for retrieval, editing and reporting.
Additional information that may be entered includes the
following:
* Potentials
* EFG
* Debris-type, size
* Structural damage-type, description
* Corrosion-type, severity
* Scouring-bottom survey
* Marine Growth-thickness, type, % of coverage
* Work Description
This data is stored in the database for subsequent analy-
sis and generation of inspection reports. These inspec-
tion reports are used for trend analysis, creation of re-
pair work orders, corrosion data evaluation and main-
tenance scheduling and budgeting. An example of a typi-
cal report menu is as follows:
* Inspection Log
* Test Points not inspected
* Cathodic Protection Potentials outside limits
* Potential History
* Debris Survey
* Structural Damage Survey
* Strructure Inspection Summary
* Repair Status
* Photograph Log
More sophisticated data base management systems uti-
lize CAD technology to graphically recreate the struc-
ture on the computer screen. These graphic capabilities
are useful for detailed visual identification of anomalies
such as cracks, repairs, or corrosion, as well as for
Page 8 of 10
sketches for bidding, data analysis and 5 creating re-
porting.
The ultimate aim of computerized data management
systems is to aid the inspection manager in efficient plan-
ning and operation of inspections, and to allow rapid
analysis and reporting of results. Use of these systems
should increase as the importance of comprehensive
inspection programs is recognized, and as acceptance
and knowledge of computer technology continues to
increase.
CONCLUSIONS
All of the survey methods have been used extensively
and are constantly being modified and improved. The
choice of the method, or a combination of methods, is
dependent on a wide range of factors including water
depth, water currents, location, depth of burial, size or
length, cathodic protection system age, and cost. The
requirements of each individual pipeline or structure will
help dictate the method to be used. In general, the fol-
lowing guidelines are offered:
A. Pipeline
1. For measurement of overall P/E potential and loca-
tion of major problem areas, the towed vehicle method
is far and away the most economical, particularly for
long pipelines. If problem areas are discovered using
the towed vehicle method, then a submersible survey
should be used to obtain detailed information on those
sections.
2. For completely buried pipelines, the towed vehicle
method is the most reliable for obtaining the P/E poten-
tial profile. Pipe tracking devices can be fitted to
submersibles, but because of the separation between
the electrode and pipe caused by burial, submersible
assisted measurements may not be significantly more
sensitive or accurate.
3. To obtain detailed information concerning relative
output of anodes, size and location of coating flows,
and integrity of field joint wraps, electric field gradient
measurements are most effective, particularly when used
in conjunction with either the submersible P/E potential
survey or direct contact P/E potential readings. Calcu-
Corrpro Companies, Inc. Technical Paper 4
lations of P/E based on remote electrode measurements
is also an acceptable method assuming that direct con-
tact P/E potential measurements are made at frequent
distance intervals. Calculations of P/E potential based
on EFG measurements is the least desirable method of
obtaining a P/E potential profile.
B. Structure
1. Drop line and guyline surveys provide general infor-
mation on the potential levels of protected structures.
The guyline is preferred since trends can be detected
by comparison with surveys of prior years. Neither tech-
nique assures placement of the reference electrode in
the most critical areas such as nodes.
2. Diver/ROV assisted surveys provide more detail for
evaluating the effectiveness of cathodic protection sys-
tems. Potential readings can be taken in the critical ar-
eas such as nodes or conductor bays. Visual inspec-
tion assists in determining the cause of any problems
detected. To prevent inaccurate measurements and the
need for call backs, an experienced corrosion engineer
should be present for on site data interpretation. This
will ensure proper equipment calibration and additional
investigation where initial measurements indicate poten-
tial problem areas. ROV assisted platform surveys are
the most economical and effective for deep water plat-
forms. In addition to structure-to-electrolyte potentials,
EFG measurements can be recorded. The video moni-
tor provides a permanent record of the measurements
and location. Again, the use of experienced vehicle op-
erators and corrosion engineers is necessary to achieve
the best results.
3. Computerized information management systems are
a valuable tool for the inspection manager. These sys-
tems, designed for use with personal computers, pro-
vide the basis for rapid and accurate data acquisition,
analysis and reporting. The reports are designed to aid
in inspection and repair budgeting, bidding and sched-
uling. The most advanced systems utilize CAD technol-
ogy for graphic display of jacket components and in-
spection results. These systems can facilitate exact lo-
cation of anomalies as well as provide sketches for bid-
ding or reporting purposes.
Page 9 of 10
REFERENCES

1. Weldon, C.P. and Weldon, F.C., “Methods for Moni-

toring Effectiveness of Cathodic Protection on Offshore
Pipelines”, paper presented at the Middle East Corro-
sion Conference, Bahrain, May, 1983.

2. Weldon, C.P. and Wolfson, S.L., “The Submersible

Assisted Offshore CPLtmm Survey Method”, paper
presented at South Central Regional N.A.C.E. meet-
ing, Corpus Christi, Texas, October 5, 1982.

3. Corrocean, corporate engineering brochure (prod-

uct and service description), Trondheim, Norway, 1987.

4. Sydberger, Thomas, “Evaluation of Inspection Meth-

ods for Offshore Pipeline Cathodic Protection Systems”,
Det Norske Veritas (1982).

5. Ocean Systems Engineering, Inc., CAIRS product

description and brochure, Houston, Texas, 1987.

Corrpro Companies, Inc. Technical Paper 4 Page 10 of 10